Case T-230/20: Action brought on 27 April 2020 — PNB Banka v ECB
Date: 2020-04-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: bank, banking supervision, financial solvency, financial supervision, right of establishment, rights of the defence








C_2020209EN.01003301.xml










22.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 209/33






Action brought on 27 April 2020 — PNB Banka v ECB
(Case T-230/20)
(2020/C 209/45)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: PNB Banka AS (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: O. Behrends, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the ECB’s decision dated 17 February 2020 regarding the withdrawal of the banking licence of AS PNB Banka;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on thirteen pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the text of the contested decision contains insufficient and misleading procedural information.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the ECB illegitimately used the two-stage procedure for the contested decision (involving a proposal of the national competent authority), pursuant to Article 14(5), second subparagraph, of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 (1) and Article 83 of Regulation (EU) No 468/2014, (2) despite the ECB’s reclassification decision of 1 March 2019 by which the ECB took over direct supervision of the applicant.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging violations of the procedure before the national competent authority, the Financial and Capital Market Commission (FCMC).










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that it had become procedurally impossible for the ECB to adopt a draft licence withdrawal decision dated 12 September 2019 on 17 February 2020 due to the procedural provision of Article 83(1) of Regulation (EU) No 468/2014.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is rendered procedurally and substantively illegal because of the ECB’s de facto licence withdrawal by means of the preceding ‘Failing or Likely to Fail’ (FOLTF) assessment of 15 August 2019.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is illegal because it is based on an illegal interference with the rights of representation of the applicant which deprives it of the entirety of its procedural rights.










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is illegal because it is based on insufficient reasoning.










8.


Eighth plea in law, alleging a violation of the applicant’s right to be heard.










9.


Ninth plea in law, alleging that the ECB was estopped from relying on the Latvian insolvency ruling dated 12 September 2019 because this ruling was illegal and based exclusively on the ECB’s erroneous FOLTF assessment.










10.


Tenth plea in law, alleging that the ECB erroneously relied on further grounds for the contested decision, namely alleged violations of large exposure limits and regulatory capital requirements, which were not justified and which the FCMC did not rely on in its draft decision.










11.


Eleventh plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is substantively illegal because the applicant has been under the FCMC’s, and therefore indirectly the ECB’s, exclusive control since 12 September 2019.










12.


Twelfth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is disproportionate.










13.


Thirteenth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is based on all defects of the FOLTF assessment.






(1)  Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63).

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 of the European Central Bank of 16 April 2014 establishing the framework for cooperation within the Single Supervisory Mechanism between the European Central Bank and national competent authorities and with national designated authorities (OJ 2014 L 141, p. 1).